Championless Trophy? - stop the bs and go

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Mard

I am from peshawar in northern pakistan and the situation is pretty bad in this part of the country. Bin laden and his gang is literary just a few hundred Kms away, not to mention Taliban. But places like Lahore and Karachi are ok i think, last time i was in lahore 3 months ago and i saw many western tourists there. Though ofcourse i can understand why some countries dont want to tour, it is understandable.

Yeah, Peshawar's always been, well, somewhere I've been very wary of. England cricketers writing about being allowed to leave hotels only with armed guards and all. Most of the rest of Pakistan doesn't seem anywhere near so bad though.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Really it's nothing like that at all.

It's pretty much exactly like that.

[steds]

Originally Posted by Mard

Bin laden and his gang is literary just a few hundred Kms away

Have to be well read to become an extremist these days?

[Lillian Thomson]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Really it's nothing like that at all.

Originally Posted by Dasa

Nah, it pretty much is.

Originally Posted by silentstriker

It's pretty much exactly like that.

Stimulating debate going on there boys.

[MrHat]

The fact is that a terrorist attack is much more likely to occur in Pakistan than Australia, England or India. This is a bit too much reality for some people.

Australia also shouldn't blindly follow Englands choices about where to tour, the ECB has left decisions about whether to tour up to the players even under death threats. CA aren't so diffident when it comes to player safety, as they are confident they'll be backed by the govt, which in Aus is generally less concerned about others opinions of it than those in the UK.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by MrHat

The fact is that a terrorist attack is much more likely to occur in Pakistan than Australia, England or India.

You're also more likely to die slipping on a wet floor and hitting your head on a sharp corner than you are sitting on your sofa and having a piano be dropped through the roof of your house on top of you.

Does that mean you should sit on the sofa all day and not risk getting up in case the floor's wet and you don't notice?

If the chance goes from exceptionally slim to fairly slim, it really doesn't mean you should decide not to risk it.

Now then, I can't say for sure that this is akin to the situation between Pakistan and the UK, but it sure as damn well seems like it to me.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by unccricket

the point i am making is that these things can happen anywhere, even in supposed "safe" countries like England. While it is true that areas of Pakistan are inherently more unstable, I still think it is unreasonable to refuse to tour Pakistan, while still playing in India or England, where terrorist attacks have occurred in the past....its the inconsistencies that bother me.

Certainly it can happen anywhere, and I was of the view Australia should have toured Pakistan this year.
Nevertheless, the counter-argument to your point is probably "Yeah, it CAN happen anywhere, but it IS happening there at the moment".
Not saying it's right, but that's probably the argument.
Maybe just leave it to the players - if they don't want to go, then don't, but send a team. Aus A toured there last year after all.
Have to say though, based on what I know ATM, which isn't a very informed opinion as I haven't looked into it in detail, I wouldn't go.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Have to say though, based on what I know ATM, which isn't a very informed opinion as I haven't looked into it in detail, I wouldn't go.

Why?

[Burgey]

Because the only news we get here about Pakistan is when something goes bad there, so without looking into it further ATM, I wouldn't feel safe going there. And I have a young family. So I wouldn't want to go.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

It's pretty much exactly like that.

Right, because England is a volatile country where there's been unrest in one form or another for a while. Comparing what's basically a one off with Pakistan is ridiculous. There are obviously different levels of threat involved. I'm not saying Pakistan is extremely volatile mind you, but it's not the UK.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Right, because England is a volatile country where there's been unrest in one form or another for a while. Comparing what's basically a one off with Pakistan is ridiculous. There are obviously different levels of threat involved. I'm not saying Pakistan is extremely volatile mind you, but it's not the UK.

What does that mean for a tourist party though? You won't be touring northwest Pakistan, the rest of the country is safe, and cricketers are never targetted anyway.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

What does that mean for a tourist party though? You won't be touring northwest Pakistan, the rest of the country is safe, and cricketers are never targetted anyway.

Right, but who is targetted? Is there some sort of plan the rest of us don't know about that means something will never happen where people who weren't supposed to be killed get killed? The incident with the NZ team years back indicates that things do happen and you can be in the wrong place and end up involved. If something does happen is there a get out where we can miraculously undo whatever damage occurs?

I'm sure living somewhere where this sort of stuff doesn't happen makes it seem like more of an issue than it is. But then I'd say living with it might also make people a little immune to the nature of any threat.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

What does that mean for a tourist party though? You won't be touring northwest Pakistan, the rest of the country is safe, and cricketers are never targetted anyway.

Yes but for the players and their decision to go or not, what matters here is perception, not the facts so much. You're pretty much right and there's a whole lot of cricketers who tour the country that are still in possession of all their arms and legs. Conversely, when it comes to perception, England and Australia have a larger extremist element than they'd care to admit too.

But, informed or not, if individual players still have that queasy feeling about going and say things like "Sure no cricketers have been targetted..... yet.", etc. and use that as a basis for not going, they shouldn't be forced to go. Let CA decide the career consequences or contractuals, sure, but contractual obligations in a non-threatening job like being a sports star (unlike, say, when I was working for Police) shouldn't determine whether a player is at risk if they decide it's unreasonable.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Yes but for the players and their decision to go or not, what matters here is perception, not the facts so much.

I agree. I don't blame the individual players.

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

But, informed or not, if individual players still have that queasy feeling about going and say things like "Sure no cricketers have been targetted..... yet.",

Sure, and if you feel that way as an individual, it's your right not to go. But I'd say that a western touring team in England might be at least as much danger of a terrorist attack than one in Pakistan, as in the subcontinent, cricket unites like little else.

I certainly am not, nor ever have, disputed the player's rights to feel safe and not tour if they want. It's just cricket and it's not worth your life. That's not at issue here. The issue is what a national board, which is supposed to think with a logical mind and make decisions based on facts (rather than perceptions, emotion, etc) should do.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Sure, and if you feel that way as an individual, it's your right not to go. But I'd say that a western touring team in England might be at least as much danger of a terrorist attack than one in Pakistan, as in the subcontinent, cricket unites like little else.

If you're talking Pakistan as a whole compared to England or Australia as a whole, sure. But, as with everything in the news, the extreme examples are what people based their decisions on because when it comes to one's life, people don't want to play the percentages but are looking for certainties I guess. And, without putting too fine a point on it, you're a private citizen and not privy to threat assessments by intel agencies (neither am I any more so I'm not criticising). The perception is that the more dangerous parts of Pakistan are far worse than the more dangerous parts of England/Australia and it's hard to argue with that.

Originally Posted by silentstriker

I certainly am not, nor ever have, disputed the player's rights to feel safe and not tour if they want. It's just cricket and it's not worth your life. That's not at issue here. The issue is what a national board, which is supposed to think with a logical mind and make decisions based on facts (rather than perceptions, emotion, etc) should do.

Can't speak for the ECB but CA's position has generally been informed by DFAT (who inform all travel warnings for Australia) and then the decision regarding whether to go is fed back to them from the players. You can question DFAT's info as much as you like but they are the government department who deals directly with this, getting feeds from ASIO, ONA and FedPol who are tasked with collecting this info. For CA to ignore any of that would be the height of irresponsibility.